THE 

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI 

BULLETIN 

Volume 15 Number 32 
EDUCATION SEMES 8 

THE KIND OF 
SCHOLARSHIP RECORDS 

TO BE KEPT IN SCHOOLS 

BY 

Max F. Meyer 

Professor of Experimental Psychology 
University of Missouri 




UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI 

COLUMBIA, MISSOUBI 

November, 1914 
Monograph 



THE 

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI 

BULLETIN 

Volume 15 Number 32 
EDUCATION SERIES 8 

THE KIND OF 

SCHOLARSHIP RECORDS 

TO BE KEPT IN SCHOOLS 

BY 

Max F. Meyer 

Professor of Experimental Psychology 
University of Missouri 



UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI 

COLUMBIA, MISSOURI 

November, 1914 






•o WX JU>Q 



is ^ m, 



The Kind of Scholarship Records to be Kept 

in Schools. 



The scholarship records of any school should permit one to 
find, in an exact and economical manner and on short notice, 
(1) the grades received by each pupil in each subject; (2) the 
grades given by each teacher during the whole or any fractional 
period of the years of his or her employment in the school; (3) 
the grades assigned in any particular subject to all the members 
of a class, for example in arithmetic in the seventh grade of a 
certain elementary school during a certain year, or in ancient 
history in a certain high school during a certain year. 

It is not asserted that the acquisition of any other data than 
those mentioned is undesirable, but merely that the above three 
kinds of data are especially desirable. Any school administration 
wanting additional data would simply have to amplify the original 
records in such a manner that the additional data could be ex- 
tracted from them. 

The three kinds of data specified should be recorded on loose 
filing cards, because such cards can be arranged easily in various 
groups for the purpose of deriving new kinds of data from them. 
To facilitate handling, the three sets of cards should be of the 
smallest standard filing size that permits placing on each card 
all of the entries likely to occur during the life of the card. 

On each card of the first set (see figure 1) should be 
entered in successive columns from left to right, (1) each sub- 
ject of instruction during any one year; (2) the number of the 
year; (3) the name of the teacher of that subject; (4) the 
grade assigned to the pupil; and further, of course, any other 
facts desired to be kept on record. The next line should contain 
the corresponding data for another subject-matter of instruction, 
and so on. For the same school all these cards ordinarily should 
be kept in one file and arranged alphabetically according to the 
names of the pupils. 

(3) 



UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI BULLETIN 



School: 


Pupil: 




Subject of Instruction 


Year 


Teacher 


Final 
Grade 


































To be continued below as nee< 


led. 







FlGUHB 1. 

In the second set of records (see figure 2) each card should 
contain, at the top, in exactly the same location, the name of a 
particular teacher. Successive columns from the left to the right 
should show (1) the year; (2) the subject taught; (3) the 
class of the school in which the subject was taught; (4) the 
absolute numbers of grades assigned to the class in the sub- 
ject, recorded in the same number of columns as the number 
of grades or marks officially adopted by the school; and (5) in 
an equal number of columns, the percentage which the number 
of each grade is of the whole number of grades assigned to the 
class in the subject. The next line should contain the corre- 



School: 




















Year 


Subject of 
Instruction 


Class 


E 


S 


M 


I 


F 


%E 


%s 


%M 


%I 


%F 








































































































To be con- 
tinued below 
as needed. 

























Figure 2. 



SCHOLARSHIP RECORDS D 

sponding data for another subject, year, class, etc., for the same 
teacher. Each school, therefore, should keep as many cards of 
this kind on file as it employs teachers. As new teachers are 
employed, new cards should be added. The old cards should 
be preserved for some years after a teacher has ceased to be 
employed by the school. 

In the third set of records (see figure 3), each card should 
contain, at the top, a fourfold heading: the name of the school, 
the year, the name of the class ("junior" or "fifth grade"), and 
the name of the subject-matter, each of these four placed in a 
corresponding location on all the cards in a definite blank space 
provided for each of the four items. Below should be found two 
lines, one for the absolute number of grades, and the other for the 
percentage which the number of each grade is of the whole num- 
ber of grades given. The first column should contain the numbers, 
actual and percentage, of the "A" grades; the second column, 
those of the "B" grades ; and so on, in the same number of 
columns as the number of marks officially adopted by the school. 
At the bottom there should be a blank for the name of the 
teacher. 



School: Year: 

Class: 

Subject of Instruction: 



Grades 


E 


S 


M 


I 


F 


Actual Number 




I 






Per Cent 




| 







Teacher:. 



Figtxbe 3. 



The cards of the third set should ordinarily be filed according 
to the year. Within the set of each year the cards should be 
arranged so that one class comes first, another following, and 
so on. Furthermore, each group of the same class should have 



6 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI BULLETIN 

an alphabetical sub-arrangement according to the subject-matter. 
Temporarily, however, the cards could be grouped together dif- 
ferently, if particular data are to be extracted. For example, all 
cards of the same subject-matter should be grouped together 
for several or even for all the classes of the school, and even 
for a period of several years. One could thus, for example, by 
adding together the corresponding figures of each card, easily 
give an answer to this question: In English, in the junior and 
senior classes of a certain high school, during the years from 
1910-11 to 1913-14, Tiow many times has the grade "A" been 
given, how many times the grade "B," and so on? After the 
new arrangement has served its purpose, the cards should be 
redistributed according to the normal plan. 

It is clear that the first set of records will be valuable 
especially to those whose interests center in the individual pupils 
and the progress made by them. The second set of records will 
be valuable especially when anybody needs information as to 
how the individual teacher performs: his or her duties. Such 
information will frequently be needed by the principal, the super- 
intendent, the school board. The third set of records will be 
valuable especially when information is needed about the efficacy 
of instruction in a whole school or a whole school system. Such 
information will be needed by superintendents, local or state, by 
school boards, and by the officers of higher institutions of learn- 
ing receiving their pupils: from the school or school system in 
question. Any one having a complete system of records of this 
kind at his disposal will soon be surprised, not only at its helpful- 
ness in meeting demands and inquiries coming from the outside, 
but at its suggestiveness in calling the administration's attention 
to problems of which nobody had thought previously. 

One of the first discoveries which the teacher, principal, or 
superintendent, keeping scholarship records, will undoubtedly 
make is this : that there seems to be something wrong with the 
original, individual grade reports. It will appear, for example, 
by comparing the grades or marks given by various teachers, 
that in a certain group of pupils, large enough to represent an 
average class made up of some excellent, some poor, and a good 
many ordinary pupils, one teacher gives proportionately a much 



SCHOLARSHIP RECORDS / 

larger number of high grades than another. The grade "A" (or, 
say, 90-100, if these are the symbols used by the school) may 
be found to have been given approximately to three-tenths, or 
thirty per cent, of that group of pupils by one teacher, and to 
only one-twentieth, or five per cent, by another teacher. Of 
course, this does not mean that the latter teacher was a poorer 
teacher than the former. No teacher would inform other people 
in this naive manner that he is a poor teacher. The fact men- 
tioned simply indicates that one teacher had an idea of what 
"A" meant differing from that of the other teacher. There is 
nothing strange in this. Rather, it would be miraculous if the 
meaning of "A" were the same in two persons when all that 
they had been informed about the meaning of "A" was that it 
was the highest grade, "B" the second grade, "C" the third, and 
so on. 

About eight years ago, when in the University of Missouri 
interest was first taken in this matter, facts were found no 
better than those of the example above. The grades given by 
forty University of Missouri teachers, all having rather large 
numbers of students, were compared. The accompanying figure 
compares the average grades of the five teachers representing 
the one extreme of the forty with the average grades of the five 
representing the other extreme. For the sake of a better com- 
parison, the students are divided into three groups. The first 
group includes the best quarter of all the students. These are 
called superior students. The second group includes that half 
of the students which has as many better students above as poorer 
students below. These are called medium students. The third 
group includes the poorest quarter of all the students. They 
are called inferior students. At the time when this comparison 
was made, three passing grades, called "A," "B," and "C," were 
used in the University. Now look at the figure on page 8. 

All the superior students received the grade "A" from the 
high-grading teachers. But the low-grading teachers gave the 
same class of students very different grades. Less than one- 
half received "A." An almost equal number received "B." And 
not an inconsiderable fraction of the students received even 



UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI BULLETIN 



r 



ABC ABCP BCP 



□ 



ABC ABCF B C F 



Superior 
students 



Medium 
students 



Inferior 
students 



Superior 
students 



Medium 
students 



Inferior 
students 



Average of five high- 
grading teachers 



Average of five low- 
grading teachers 



"C." Now let us look at the grades received by the medium 
students. The high-grading teachers reported nearly one-half 
of this class of students as "A," one-half as "B," and an insig- 
nificant fraction as "C." But the low-grading teachers reported 
none as "A," less than one-third as "B," more than two-thirds 
as "C," and a few even as failures. Let us further look at the 
grading of the inferior students. The low-grading teachers re- 
ported more than two-thirds of them as failures, less than one- 
third as "C." But the high-grading teachers reported only one- 
fifth of these students as failures, about one-half as "C," and 
three-tenths even as "B." 

Think of the government of a nation, prescribing that each 
citizen pay an income tax, but leaving it to each citizen's notion 
to determine what percentage of his income he ought to con- 
tribute. Each citizen would then grade, so to speak, by the 
amount of tax he paid, not the amount of his income, but his 
moral and social convictions. The treasury department would 
then have, in the list of the tax payers, first one who is willing 
to contribute, say ninety-seven per cent, then one who believes 



SCHOLARSHIP RECORDS 9 

in contributing, say ninety-four per cent, and so on to the most 
miserly citizen. The treasury department, however, does not 
want this. It wants a list of the taxpayers according to income, 
not according to willingness to pay. We would laugh at a govern- 
ment requiring each citizen to pay an income tax, but failing 
to state what percentage of the income must be paid. We should 
likewise laugh at a school administration telling its teachers to 
report some "A" grades, some "B" grades, some "C" grades, 
and so on, but failing to state the percentage of "A" grades, "B" 
grades, "C" grades, and so on. Each teacher, in reporting, would 
then unwittingly grade, not his pupils so much, but rather him- 
self, his own notion of what ought to be done. That is, one 
would report that according to his conviction a teacher ought to 
report only, say, six per cent "A" grades ; another would express 
his conviction that a teacher ought to report, say, twelve per cent 
"A" grades ; a third would grade himself as believing in eighteen 
per cent "A" grades ; and so on to the most liberally grading 
teacher. But the school administration does not want its teachers 
thus to grade themselves. It wants them to grade their pupils, 
so that one may tell who is the best kind of scholar, who a less 
good scholar, and who a very poor scholar. 

Any school administration keeping scholarship records will 
soon find out to what extent its teachers grade their own convic- 
tions rather than the scholarship of their pupils. Divergences 
in the percentage of each grade among the several teachers will 
indicate whether the teachers have the same or different notions 
of the meaning of each grade. If the divergence is considerable, 
the practical question is how to reduce it. It is clear that it ought 
to be brought to the attention of those teachers who report, say, 
too many B's and too few C's, that they diverge thus from the 
majority of their colleagues and how much they diverge. 

This may or may not be sufficient to bring about the desired 
uniformity of grading. The teachers, being reasonable beings, 
may understand that scholarship records kept by the school are 
worthless, if, instead of being scholarship records, they are a 
confused kind of record of what the several teachers believe 
the various grades ought to mean. But even reasonable beings 
are sometimes unreasonable. Those being in the minority might 



10 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI BULLETIN 

think that, since majorities are not necessarily always right, here 
is such a case in which the minority is right, and might regard 
it as their duty to stick to their convictions. 

It is preferable, therefore, to avoid the raising of such ques- 
tions altogether by adopting officially definitions of the grades 
which every teacher must accept in taking office. The question 
then is this : How can the administration of a school or school 
system define the meaning of the grades? This question is easily 
answered. As has been seen, the lack of definition of the grades 
is likely to result in the records showing an unduly high or 
unduly low percentage of certain grades. The simplest way of 
defining any grade is therefore obviously to state to what percent- 
age of the whole number of pupils graded should be assigned this 
grade, and to what percentage of the whole number of students 
graded should be assigned a higher grade, and to what percentage 
should be assigned a lower grade. In other words, each grade is 
defined by the relative frequency of its occurrence among a hun- 
dred grades, that is, per centum. 

This is not only the simplest way of defining scholarship 
grades ; it is at present, and undoubtedly will be for a long time, 
the only one universally applicable. Of course, absolute standards, 
units of measurement, are desirable in education as in any science ; 
and indeed a few have been worked out with fair success for 
certain kinds of subjects, as writing, composition, and arith- 
metic. But for universal application to a school system, absolute 
units are as yet out of the question, 

It is of minor importance what the frequencies are which 
are officially adopted as definitions of the grades. At the same 
time, however, it means a saving of time and energy in comparing 
different schools if these schools use the same or about the same 
frequencies. The University of Missouri uses the following: 
The grade "Medium" is defined as indicating that in a class of 
one hundred students the student so graded would be found 
among the students above whom there are twenty-five better ones 
and below whom there are twenty-five poorer ones. If the classes 
are small, the grades should conform to this distribution in 
the long run. The best fourth of the students are called superior 
and the poorest fourth are called inferior. Those above are 



SCHOLARSHIP RECORDS 11 

subdivided so as to give to the best (say, four or five among each 
twenty-five) the grade of "Excellent," to the others simply the 
grade of "Superior." Those below also are subdivided so as to 
give to the poorest among each twenty-five the grade of "Failure," 
to the others simply the grade of "Inferior." 

The reasons for this particular system will be stated briefly. 
It is better to have an odd number of grades than an even 
number of grades. An even number of grades, for example six, 
would divide an array of students in the middle. But this is the 
very place where a division point is least needed. Divisions 
should be made where people vary greatly. Average people, 
however, vary least one from another. An odd number permits 
giving one grade to the large group of average students. To 
choose one-half of all as the frequency of this group, is simply 
to follow the custom prevailing among statisticans. The one- 
quarter above and the one-quarter below have been subdivided 
because three grades seemed to be too few to do justice to the 
students. On the other hand, seven, the next higher odd number 
after five, seem to be too many. Experiments which have been 
made seem to indicate that no greater accuracy is gained by 
using seven or more grades. When seven grades are used it 
becomes almost a mere matter of chance whether a student is 
placed in the first rather than in the second group, or another 
student in the second rather than in the third, and so on. The 
ability of the teacher to make distinctions of scholarship soon 
reaches its limit when an attempt is made to distinguish more than 
five classes. 

It is evident that the original task of the teacher, using such 
a grading system with defined grades, consists in ranking his 
or her pupils ; that is, in putting down one as the best, another 
as the second best, a third one as the third best, and so on, down 
to the very poorest in the class. Having done this, the teacher 
divides the whole array into five groups, according to the fre- 
quencies given in the official definitions. If the class is small, 
the teacher must use the best judgment possible in assigning 
grades so that {n the long run the distribution of the grades given 
will be in accordance with the definitions. If the judgment of 



12 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI BULLETIN 

a teacher, or of all the teachers of the school, is bad in this re- 
spect, it will soon show in the cumulative scholarship records. 

School grades do, and ought to, indicate simply a pupil's 
rank among other pupils doing the same kind of work. Rank 
is not used here in the individual sense that Mary Gray ranks 
between John Brown and Frank White, which may be true, but 
is of minor importance ; but it is used in the general sense, which 
alone is important, that Mary Gray among thousands of pupils 
would rank in the group of the average, or in the group of 
the superior ones, or in the group of the inferior ones. This 
is what parents want and ought to be able to know, in order to 
decide whether they ought to make sacrifices to send Mary to 
high school or to college. This is also what the college wants 
to know, before it admits a high school graduate. But this 
information can be obtained with sufficient reliability only from 
a school which keeps careful scholarship records. 

There are some practical questions of secondary importance 
upon the discussion of which we cannot enter here. One ques- 
tion, however, might be touched upon. It is often asked whether 
a grading system with grades defined by their frequencies can be 
applied to selected classes. The answer is this. It depends on 
the purpose for which the class was selected. If the selected 
class is doing the same kind of work which an unselected class 
is doing, then the selected class should obtain an increase in the 
number of higher grades corresponding to the degree of selec- 
tion. But if this class was selected for the very purpose of 
doing selected work, then the normal frequencies should be 
strictly applied. Otherwise, we would once more indicate by 
the grading assigned the fact already known, that these individuals 
were selected. But we would fail to indicate what is really im- 
portant, namely, who can do this selected work best, who next 
best, who less well, and who least well. For example, if college 
students were selected from high school students in order to do 
in college some further high school work, then indeed college 
students would deserve higher grades than high school students. 
But they have been selected to do selected work, college work; 
and therefore the same system of grading is applicable to the 



SCHOLARSHIP RECORDS 13 

college as to the high school and to the elementary school and 
to each subdivision of these institutions. 

For the same reason the same percentages of the grades are, 
in general, applicable to a class in a subject which the teacher 
considers as unusually hard or unusually easy. It is pedagogic- 
ally wrong to teach any subject in such a manner that it is 
unusually hard or unusually easy. Any subject in any class ought 
to be taught in a manner suited to the majority of the members, 
neither the worst nor the best, of the class. Instead of applying 
a different method of grading, the teacher ought to apply a dif- 
ferent method of teaching; that is, a method better adapted to 
the majority of his class. If, however, the class has been selected 
— whether intentionally or unintentionally — with the result that 
only scholars unusually poor in the subject are found in the class 
doing unselected work, then the percentages of the lower grades 
may be increased. Or if as the result of selection only scholars 
unusually good in the subject are found in the class doing un- 
selected work, then the percentages of the higher grades may 
be increased. But the cases are exceedingly rare in which the 
conscientious teacher, trying to prove that the membership of 
his class is unusual, will find this proof forthcoming. 

Further information about practical and theoretical questions 
concerning scholarship records, grading systems, and examina- 
tion methods helpful to sound grading, may be obtained from 
the literature given in the appended bibliography, which is ar- 
ranged in chronological order. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY. 



1902. Hyde, W. D., The Adjustment of the Small College to our Edu- 

cational System. (Credit for Quality.) The Outlook, Vol. 71, 
p. 866. 

1903. Stevens, W. L., American Titles and Distinctions. Popular 

Science Monthly, Vol. 63, p. 310. 

1904. Sargant, E. B., Education of Examiners. Nature, Vol. 70, 

p. 63. 

1905. Cattell, J. M., Examinations, Grades, and Credits. Popular 

Science Monthly, Vol. 66, p. 367. 
1908. Hall, W. S., A Guide to the Equitable Grading of Students. 

School Science and Mathematics, Vol. 6, June, 1906. 
1908. Meyer, Max F., The Grading of Students. Science N. S., Vol 28, 

p. 243. 

1910. Dearborn, W. P., School and University Grades. Bulletin of Uni- 

versity of Wisconsin, No. 368. 

Huey, E. B., Retardation and the Mental Examination of Re- 
tarded Children. Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, Vol. 15, p. 31. 

Jitdd, C. H., On the Comparison of Grading Systems in High 
Schools and Colleges. School Review, Vol. 19, p. 460. 

1911. Foster, W. T., Scientific Versus Personal Distribution of College 

Credits. Popular Science Monthly, Vol. 72, p. 388. 
Foster, W. T., Administration of the College Curriculum. 

Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. Chapter 13. 
Smith, A. G., A Rational College Marking System. Journal of 

Educational Psychology, Vol. 2, p. 383. 
Steele, A. G., Training Teachers to Grade. Pedagogical Sem- 
inary, Vol. 18, p. 523. 
Weiss, A. P., On Methods of Mental Measurements in Schools 

and Colleges. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 2, p. 

555. 
Meyer, Max F., Experiences loith the Grading System of the 

University of Missouri. Science N. S., Vol. 33, p. 661. 
Karapetoff, V., Letter on Examination Questions. Bulletin of 

the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, Vol. 

2, p. 115. 

1912. Sies, R. W., Scientific Grading of College Students. University 

of Pittsburgh Bulletin 8, No. 21. 
Foster, W. T., Scientific Distribution of Grades at Reed College. 
Science N. S., Vol. 35, p. 887. 

(14) 



SCHOLARSHIP RECORDS 15 

Weiss, A. P., School Grades — To What Type of Distribution 
Shall They Conform? Science N. S., Vol. 36, p. 403. 

Colvin, S. S., Marks and the Marking System as an Incentive to 
Study. Education, Vol. 32, p. 560. 

Weiss, A. P., The Ebbinghaus Conjectural Method of Examina- 
tion. Journal of Experimental Pedagogy, Vol. 1, p. 320. 

Smith, P. O., A Rational Basis for Determining Fitness for 
College Entrance. Studies in Education, University of Iowa, 
I, 3. 

1913. Starch, D., Reliability and Distribution of Grades. Science N. S, 

Vol. 38, p. 630. 
Gray, C. T., Variations in the Grades of High School Pupils. 

Educational Psychology Monographs, No. 8. 
Herschel, W. H., Scientific Ranking Systems. Bulletin of the 

Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, p. 529. 
Finkelstein, I. E., The Marking System in Theory and Practice. 

Educational Psychology Monographs, No. 10. 

1914. Bovet, P., he Rendement du Travail Scholaire. L'Education en 

Suisse, Xe annee, Geneva. 
Maxwell, G. E., The Grading of Students. Winona (Minnesota) 

Normal Bulletin. 
Hyde, A. L., The Grading System of the University of Missouri. 

Bulletin of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Educa- 
tion, p. 173. 
Cajori, F., A New Marking System. Science N. S., Vol. 39, 

p. 874. 
Boring, E. G., The Marking System in Theory. Pedagogical 

Seminary, Vol. 21, p. 269. 
Meyer, Max F., Scientific Institutions Minus Science. Science 

N. S., Vol. 39, p. 535. 
Woolley, P. Q., Premedical Education (Credit for Quality). 

Science N. S., Vol. 39, p. 750. 
Meyer, Max F., The Limit of Uniformity in the Grading of Col- 
lege Students. Science N. S., Vol. 40, p. 530. 
Coursault, J. H., Grading System Adopted by the University of 

Missouri. The Ohio State Lantern, Vol. XXXIV, No. 8 and 

No. 9. 
Ruediger, W. C, Henning, Geo. N., and Wilbur, Wm. A., 

Standardization of Courses and Grades. Science N. S., Vol. 

40, p. 642. 



THE 

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI 

BULLETIN 

Volume 15 Number 32 
Issued three times monthly 

EDUCATION SERIES 8 

EDITED BY 

J. H. COURSAULT 
Professor of the History and Philosophy of Education 

1. Circular of Information to Accredited Schools, Fifth Edition, 
Revised. Issued by the Committee on Accredited Schools. (Out 

of print.) 

2. Rural Consolidation in Missouri, by O. L. Kunkel, Graduate 
Student, and W. W. Charters, Dean of the School of Education. 
(Out of print.) 

3. Journalism for Teachers, by F. L. Martin, Associate Professor of 
the Theory and Practice of Journalism. (Out of print.) 

4. Geography of Missouri, by F. V. Emerson, Instructor in Geology. 

5. The Teaching of Poetry in the High School, by A. H. R. Fair- 
child, Professor of English. (Out of print.) 

6. An Experimental Study of Methods of, Teaching High School 
German, by Mamie M. Glarahan, Graduate Student. 

7. Circular of Information to Accredited Schools, Sixth Edition, 
Revised. Issued by the Committee on Accredited Schools. (Pub- 
lished as Vol. II, No. 1.) (Out of print.) 

8 The Kind of Scholarship Records to be Kept in Schools, by Max 
F. Meyer, Professor of Experimental Psychology. 
Copies of the University of Missouri Bulletin, Education Series, 
may be obtained without charge by sending requests to Editor, Educa- 
tion Series of Bulletins, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri. 

Published by 
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI 

COLUMBIA, MISSOURI 

Entered as second-class matter at the postoffice 
at Columbia, Missouri. 4000 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

021 285 171 1 | 



